182 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



B. Montinus.'" Now, these two statements are quite irreconcilable, for 

 while it is quite true that some so-called species stand so close together 

 that a third may be quite correctly described as very close to both, this is 

 certainly not the case with the species in question, which are very distinct. 

 I think it will therefore be conceded that Mr. Scudder is wrong in one of 

 these statements, and we can therefore proceed to examine which is 

 erroneous, and I beHeve it will be found that in this case second thoughts 

 were not best. 



Both Chariclea and Freya occur in Europe, and have been studied 

 and illustrated by European entomologists. Freya, or Freija, is figured 

 and described in Boisduval's Icones, p. loo, pi. 19, fig. 4, 5, and in the 

 same work there is a description and figure (p. 98, pi. 20, fig. 5, 6) of A. 

 Boisduvalii, which all the authorities that I have been able to consult, 

 with possibly one exception, concede to be but a variety of Chariclea. 

 Both of these references were omitted by Kirby from his catalogue and 

 the former was overlooked by both Edwards and Scudder, but both are 

 given in Strecker's catalogue. The figures in Boisduval's work, though 

 inferior to those to which Messrs. Edwards and Scudder have accustomed 

 us, are still sufficiently accurate to prove that it is truly Chariclea, as 

 stated by Mr. Scudder in his first volume, to which A. Montinus is allied. 

 Mr. Scudder also makes the mistake of giving, doubtfully it is true, 

 M. Tarquinins Curtis as a synonym of A. Boisduvalii, while all the 

 other authorities give it as a synonym o{ Freya. From its description in 

 the appendix to the " Narrative of Sir John Ross," it must certainly be 

 very close to Freya, and is probably identical with it, but it has no con- 

 nection with Chariclea or its variety, Boisduvalii. It thus appears that 

 Mr. Scudder must have confused these species, and so transposed their 

 names, a very curious mistake, and apparently similar to that which he 

 formerly made in regard to Phyciodes Harrisii and Nycteis, to which I 

 called his attention in 1878. 



As there are doubtless many readers of this journal who are not 

 familiar with these northern species of Argynnis, a few descriptive notes 

 may not be out of place. 



Chariclea may be described as somewhat like Myrina upon the upper 

 side, though the markings are heavier, especially upon the secondaries, 

 and it is rather more deeply shaded at the bases of the wings. There is, 

 however, a very striking difference in the fact that in Chariclea the cres- 



